Environment Protection Authority v Big River Group Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 80

Environment Protection Authority v Big River Group Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 80

Big River Group Pty Ltd was sentenced for contravening s 120(1) of the POEOA by polluting water through the unintentional discharge of resin into a wetland, an offence of moderate objective gravity. Despite the deliberate activation of a pump likely by an employee, the company had control over its processes and could have implemented practical and reasonable preventive measures. Significant mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, exemplary cooperation and assistance, remorse, steps to remedy and prevent recurrence, and good character, resulting in a 33% penalty discount. The appropriate fine, reflecting retribution, general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and...

Parties
Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: Big River Group Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal (environmental Offence) / Sentencing
Outcome
The defendant is convicted and fined, ordered to pay costs, and exhibits are to be returned.
Legal Topics
Water Pollution, Strict Liability Offences, Sentencing Principles, Environmental Harm, Corporate Liability
Environmental Law Criminal Law Water Pollution Strict Liability Offences Sentencing Principles Environmental Harm Corporate Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

Big River Group Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (environmental Offence) / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for Big River Group Pty Ltd's offence of polluting water under s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997?
  2. 2 What objective and subjective factors should be considered in sentencing for water pollution?
  3. 3 How should the actual and potential environmental harm be assessed?

Ratio Decidendi

Big River Group Pty Ltd was sentenced for contravening s 120(1) of the POEOA by polluting water through the unintentional discharge of resin into a wetland, an offence of moderate objective gravity. Despite the deliberate activation of a pump likely by an employee, the company had control over its processes and could have implemented practical and reasonable preventive measures. Significant mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, exemplary cooperation and assistance, remorse, steps to remedy and prevent recurrence, and good character, resulting in a 33% penalty discount. The appropriate fine, reflecting retribution, general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and...

Court Disposition

The defendant is convicted and fined, ordered to pay costs, and exhibits are to be returned.

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of the offence against s 120(1) of the POEOA as charged;
  • The defendant is fined the sum of $67,000;